Additional reference: 2008-19-1, 2008-19-2, 2008-19-3, 2008-19-4
Ottawa, 20 November 2008
Reference: 8646-C12-200815400
In this Public Notice, the Commission initiates a public proceeding to consider Internet traffic management practices for both wholesale and retail Internet services. The Commission invites detailed written comments, with supporting rationale, on the issues identified below. The proceeding will include an oral public hearing, which will begin on 6 July 2009 at the Conference Centre, Phase IV, 140 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec.
1. Broadband access to the Internet is widely accepted in Canada. The number of residential subscribers to high-speed Internet services increased to 64 percent of households in 2007, up from 58 percent in 2006.1 The speeds available to access the Internet continue to increase, enabling faster downloads and access to new and innovative applications and services that place increasing demands on the networks that make up the Internet.
2. The growth in Internet traffic is being cited as a main reason why some Internet service providers (ISPs) are adopting Internet traffic management practices to address possible congestion in their networks.2 Traffic management practices may take many forms and approaches including using technologies to alter the flow of traffic or new business models. ISPs use many different technologies to offer high-speed Internet services, including digital subscriber lines (DSL), wireless, cable, and satellite, which may affect which traffic management practices are used.
3. The use of certain Internet traffic management practices has raised concerns in Canada and in other jurisdictions. The Commission recognizes the importance of this issue. Accordingly, the Commission is initiating a proceeding under the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to:
(i) examine the Internet traffic management practices which have been, or may be, adopted by ISPs; and
(ii) pronounce on whether such practices are consistent with the Act, and whether any measures are required to ensure that such practices are in accordance with the Act.
4. The Commission anticipates that any determinations it makes in this proceeding will be applied in a technologically neutral fashion.
5. The Commission has forborne in large part from regulating the retail Internet services of Canadian carriers. In doing so, the Commission has retained its powers under subsections 27(2), which relates to unjust discrimination and undue preference or advantage, 27(3) (in part), and 27(4) of the Act. In addition, the Commission has retained its powers under section 24 (in part) so that, among other things, it may impose conditions on the offering and provision of retail Internet services as may be necessary in the future. The Commission has not forborne from regulating the provision of wholesale Internet services of Canadian carriers. Further, section 36 of the Act prohibits a Canadian carrier from controlling the content or influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public, unless the Commission approves otherwise.
6. On 3 April 2008, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) filed an application with the Commission requesting certain orders directing Bell Canada to cease and desist from throttling3 Internet traffic generated by peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing applications on its wholesale ADSL access service known as Gateway Access Service (GAS). In Telecom Decision 2008-108, in response to the application from CAIP, the Commission determined that, based on the record of that proceeding, Bell Canada's application of its traffic-shaping measures to GAS were not in violation of the Act, and it therefore denied CAIP's application.
7. In Telecom Decision 2008-108, the Commission dealt only with Bell Canada's practice of throttling P2P traffic at certain times of the day in relation to its GAS being provided to wholesale customers. In this proceeding, the Commission will explore the current and potential Internet traffic management practices of all ISPs operating in Canada, examining both retail and wholesale services.
8. As noted above, the issues raised in this proceeding will be considered by the Commission pursuant to its mandate under the Act. In its public notice initiating the new media proceeding,4 the Commission called for comments on issues regarding practices that may restrict or enhance the distribution of an access to Canadian broadcasting content delivered and accessed over the Internet and through mobile devices. The Commission notes that to the extent that Internet traffic management practices of ISPs raise issues under the Broadcasting Act relating to the distribution of and access to Canadian broadcasting content, they will be explored in the context of that proceeding pursuant to the Commission's mandate under the Broadcasting Act.
9. The Commission invites parties to comment on Internet traffic management practices of ISPs, including in particular the issues described below. In their comments, parties should provide full supporting rationale and all evidence on which they rely, and structure their submissions according to the topics and questions identified below.
(1) A primary reason given for Internet traffic management practices is the increase in Internet traffic volumes caused by end-users.5 This has been attributed to growth in the use of certain applications, as well as growth in online video consumption, which can lead to network congestion.6
a) How has Internet traffic grown in the past three years and what are the predictions for its growth in the future? What has been the impact on Canadian ISP networks?
b) How has average end-user bandwidth consumption changed in the past three years and what are the predictions for future changes in Canada?
c) How should congestion be defined in an ISP's network?
d) Are there applications or services that are more likely to cause congestion, and if so, what are they?
e) What are the relative bandwidth requirements for different types of Internet applications?
(2) The Commission is seeking information regarding technical and economic solutions that are available now, or likely to be available in the future, for the purpose of Internet traffic management. The Commission would also like to understand the impacts of these solutions.
a) What technologies could be employed by ISPs (for example, deep packet inspection) to manage Internet traffic?
b) What developments are under way with respect to traffic protocol (such as modifications to transmission control protocols) and/or application changes (such as changes to P2P file exchange) which could assist in addressing network congestion?
c) What are the specific capabilities offered by the technical solutions identified in (a) and (b) above? For example, would these technologies allow for throttling of individual users or groups of users; would they allow for the collection of information about persons and to what extent?
d) With reference to questions (a) to (c) above, how effective would these solutions be in addressing network congestion in the ISP networks?
e) Also with reference to questions (a) to (c) above, what impact could the implementation of technical solutions have on the Internet Engineering Tark Force standards upon which the operation of the Internet is based? Could these solutions create interoperability challenges for application developers?
f) Describe the advantages and disadvantages (including end-user impacts) of employing the following practices in order to manage Internet traffic:
i. monthly bandwidth limits (bit caps),
ii. excess bandwidth usage charges,
iii. time of day usage pricing,
iv. peak period throttling,
v. end-user-based throttling,7
vi. application-based throttling,
vii. content caching,
viii. upgrading network capacity, and
ix. others not listed above.
a) Should these requirements be extended to other ISPs providing wholesale Internet services such as the third party Internet access services offered by cable ISPs?
b) Are similar requirements necessary and appropriate in relation to the provision of retail Internet services?
c) If so, what kinds of practices, and/or changes to practices, should trigger these requirements and what information and how much notice should be provided to end-users?
a) What, if any, Internet traffic management practices employed by ISPs would result in unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference or advantage?
a) What, if any, Internet traffic management practices employed by ISPs would result in controlling the content, or influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications?
b) For any Internet traffic management practice identified in (a), what criteria should the Commission apply in determining whether to authorize such practice?
a) What issues do Internet traffic management practices raise concerning the policy objectives of the Act?
a) In light of the Policy Direction, address the requirement for, and the appropriateness of, implementing any regulatory measures in relation to Internet traffic management by ISPs.
b) For each proposed regulatory measure, comment on how such measure would be consistent with the Policy Direction as well as how these measures could be implemented in the least intrusive manner.
a) Discuss any initiatives being examined or undertaken in other jurisdictions in relation to the issues raised in this proceeding concerning the Internet traffic management practices of ISPs.
b) With respect to any initiatives described in part (a) of this question, discuss their possible applicability in Canada.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
1 2008 Communications Monitoring Report (CRTC) http://crtc.gc.ca/ENG/publications/reports/PolicyMonitoring/2008/cmr2008.htm
2 See, for example, CISCO:
Approaching the Zettabyte Era, 16 June 2008
(http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/
white_paper_c11‑481374.pdf)
3 In the context of CAIP's application, throttling referred to the practice of slowing down the transfer rates of traffic by delaying certain data packets at certain points in the network.
4 Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing 2008-11, 15 October 2008, question 14 (paragraph 29).
5 See, for example CISCO:
Approaching the Zettabyte Era, 16 June 2008
(http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/
white_paper_c11‑481374.pdf)
6 Network congestion is broadly defined to mean a situation whereby the amount of traffic transiting the network may lead to a deterioration in service for some end‑users.
7 In the context of Internet traffic management, throttling can broadly be defined as slowing down the transfer rates of traffic by delaying certain data packets at certain points in the network.
8 The objectives of the Canadian
telecommunications policy are set out in section 7 of the Act as
follows:
(a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a
telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and
strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions;
(b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services
of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in
all regions of Canada;
(c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the
national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications;
(d) to promote the ownership and control of Canadian carriers by
Canadians;
(e) to promote the use of Canadian transmission facilities for
telecommunications within Canada and between Canada and points outside
Canada;
(f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the
provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation,
where required, is efficient and effective;
(g) to stimulate research and development in Canada in the field
of telecommunications and to encourage innovation in the provision of
telecommunications services;
(h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users
of telecommunications services; and
(i) to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons.
Date Modified: 2008-11-20